Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.

com/

Rural Resident Tourism Perceptions And Attitudes By Community Level Of Tourism

Patrick T. Long, Richard R. Perdue and Lawrence Allen
Journal of Travel Research 1990 28: 3
DOI: 10.1177/004728759002800301

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/28/3/3

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/28/3/3.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1990

What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
 Rural Resident Tourism Perceptions
And Attitudes By Community
Level Of Tourism
PATRICK T. LONG, RICHARD R. PERDUE, AND LAWRENCE ALLEN

Focusing on the residents of 28 rural Colorado communities, this research examines

differences in resident tourism perceptions and attitudes across communities categorized
on the basis of the community’s existing level of tourism. The results indicate that the
perceived impacts of tourism, both positive and negative, increase with increasing levels of
tourism. With respect to resident attitudes toward additional tourism development, how-
ever, the results suggest that resident attitudes initially increase in favorability with
increasing tourism development, but achieve a threshold level of development beyond
which attitudes become less favorable. In this study, this threshold was achieved when
approximately 30% ofthe community’s retail sales were derivedfrom tourism. Finally, the
results also indicate that resident supportfor special tourism user fees and taxes increases
with increasing levels of tourism development.

In rural communities throughout the United States, tour-
ism development is receiving increased recognition as a
regional economic development tool (Getz 1986; Liu and Var
1986). As a result of widespread declines in traditional rural
industries such as agriculture, mining, petroleum, and for-
estry (Somersan 1988), tourism increasingly is perceived as a
potential basic industry which provides local employment
opportunities, tax revenues, and economic diversity to rural
communities. Further, tourism is an industry well suited to
the current rural policy emphasis on entrepreneurial devel-
opment and small business assistance programs designed to
encourage the start-up and growth of locally owned busi-
nesses (Watkins and Allen 1988).
Unfortunately, in making the decision to promote tourism
development, most local governments have examined only
the perceived economic benefits of such developments (Pizam
1978; Haywood 1988). With the growing recognition of the
potential social and environmental costs of tourism develop-
ment (Rosenow and Pulsipher 1979; Jafari 1981 ), however
the importance of comprehensive tourism planning, including
public participation, is apparent (Pearce 1981; Loukissas
1983; Murphy 1985; Marsh and Henshall 1987). As stated
by Murphy ( 1981, p. 195), &dquo;If tourism is to develop within a
community, the hosts of the ’host industry’ must become
willing partners.&dquo; Consequently, numerous studies of local
resident attitudes toward tourism impacts have been con-
ducted over the past few years.
Patrick T. Long is at the Center for Recreation and Tourism
Development, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO.
Richard R Perdue is at the Office of Park and Tourism Re-
search, Department of Recreation Resources Administration,
North Carolma State University, Raleigh, NC. Lawrence Allen
is Department Head m Parks, Recreation and Tourism Man-
agement at Clemson University, SC The authors wish to ac-
knowledge the Colorado Vendors for the Job Trammg Part-
nership Act, The US West Foundation, and the Council on
Research and Creative Wntmg, University of Colorado Gradu-
ate School for their fmanclal support of this project. Requests
for reprmts should be directed to Patnck T. Long
Focusing on the residents of 28 rural Colorado communi-
ties, this study examined differences in resident tourism per-
ceptions and attitudes across communities categorized on the
basis of the community’s existing level of tourism. Three
general types of tourism questions were examined: the per-
ceived impact of existing tourism, the desirability of addi-
tional tourism development, and the appropriateness of
special tourism user fees and taxes.
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ATTITUDES
Numerous studies of host community tourism attitudes
and perceptions have been conducted over the past few years
(Getz 1977; Pizam 1978; Rothman 1978; Belisle and Hoy
1980; Thomason, Crompton, and Kamp 1979; Brougham
and Butler 1981; Murphy 1981; Cooke 1982; Murphy 1983;
Sheldon and Var 1984; Liu and Var 1986; Pizam and Milman
1986; Liu, Sheldon, and Var 1987; Perdue, Long, and Allen
1987; Milman and Pizam 1988). With the purpose of identi-
fying the attitudes and concerns of potential &dquo;publics&dquo; and
special interest groups, many of these studies have focused on
identifying differences in attitudes toward tourism among
different types of local residents. These types have been
identified on the basis of sociodemographic characteristics
(Pizam 1978; Belisle and Hoy 1980; Liu and Var 1986;
Milman and Pizam 1988), place of residence, especially dis-
tance from the tourism area of the community (Belisle and
Hoy 1980; Sheldon and Var 1984), and economic dependence
on tourism, measured both as type of employment (Pizam
1978; Milman and Pizam 1988) and by comparing local
entrepreneurs, public officials, and other residents (Thoma-
son, Crompton, and Kamp 1979; Murphy 1983). This re-
search has found that little difference exists in tourism atti-
tudes by sociodemographic characteristics, that the perceived
impact of tourism decreases as the distance between the
individual’s home and the tourism sector of the community
increases, and that the favorability of attitudes toward tour-
ism increases with the individual’s economic dependence on
tourism. Following an exchange theory logic (Bryant and

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
3
Napier 1981), the existing research has generally concluded
that those people who benefit from tourism perceive less
social and environmental impact from tourism and have more
favorable attitudes toward additional tourism development
(Pizam 1978; Murphy 1983; Milman and Pizam 1988).
While exchange theory provides a perspective to better
understand local resident tourism perceptions and attitudes,
its contribution to regional tourism planning is limited. Vir-
tually all of the existing research has reported case studies
examining tourism perceptions and attitudes in a single com-
munity or region. Moreover, these study areas have, for the
most part, been communities or regions with relatively large,
well established tourism industries. As such, this research
provides only limited information concerning the changes
that occur in tourism attitudes and perceptions as a function of
growth in the local tourism industry.
Currently, carrying capacity is the predominant theoreti-
cal perspective of rural tourism planning and development
(O’Reilly 1986; Getz 1983; Getz 1986). This perspective is a
long standing, well established natural resource management
concept. Since the 1960s, it has also been widely applied to
recreation resource planning and management (Stankey et al.
1985). Essentially, the carrying capacity perspective postu-
lates a positive correlation between increasing levels of rec-
reational use and the resulting negative environmental and
social impacts. Theoretically, there is a level of use or carry-
ing capacity beyond which the impacts become unacceptable
to the resource management agency. The management focus
is on determining the level of acceptable change in the re-
source and in the recreation experience being provided by
that resource, on monitoring the changes that occur as a result
of increasing recreational use, and on limiting or controlling
recreational use so that unacceptable changes do not occur
(Stankey et al. 1985). The most difficult aspect of applying
carrying capacity to recreation resource management has
been documenting, in both the resource and the provided
recreation experience, the changes that occur with increasing
levels of use.
Similarly, documenting the changes that occur in com-
munities with increasing levels of tourism development is an
important research need for applying carrying capacity to
tourism planning and development. Importantly, application
of the carrying capacity paradigm to tourism planning and
development requires a more multidimensional perspective.
While the recreation resources management literature has
generally assumed only negative impacts from increasing
levels of use, tourism has both negative and positive impacts
on a local community. The focus of this research was to
examine the changes which occur in resident tourism percep-
tions and attitudes with increasing levels of tourism develop-
ment. It was hypothesized that the perceived impacts of
tourism, both positive and negative, would increase with
increasing levels of tourism. With respect to resident attitudes
toward additional tourism development, however, it was
hypothesized that the favorability of resident attitudes would
initially increase with increasing tourism development, but at
some point would achieve a threshold level of development
beyond which attitudes would become less favorable. Finally,
it was hypothesized that resident support for special tourism
user fees and taxes would increase with increasing levels of
tourism development.
METHODOLOGY
In 1985, survey data were collected in 28 small (popula-
tion ranging from 261 to 5,259, mean 1,411) rural Colo-
=
rado communities as part of the Colorado Rural Recreation
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
4
Development Project (CRRDP). This project involved the
placement of a rural recreation director in participating com-
munities over the summer period with the primary purpose of
developing structured recreation programs. This director
selected two local youth employees to assist with program
administration. For the purposes of needs assessment and
evaluation, a community survey was conducted both at the
beginning and at the end of the summer.
Because of the importance of tourism to many rural
Colorado community economies, the pretest questionnaire
included questions on resident tourism perceptions and atti-
tudes. These questions were derived from the existing litera-
ture, particularly the works by Thomason, Crompton, and
Kamp (1979), Belisle and Hoy (1980), Murphy ( 1981 ), and
Sheldon and Var( 1984).
Prior to beginning their work in the communities, the direc-
tors participated in a five-day training program at the Univer-
sity of Colorado at Boulder. One day of that training was
devoted to the procedures for administration of the com-
munity survey.
Self-administered questionnaires were hand-delivered by
the director to selected households in each community. At a
scheduled time, the director or a project youth returned to the
household to pick up the completed questionnaire. House-
holds were selected using systematic sampling with a random
starting point. Specifically, the director was instructed to
begin at a particular point in the community and select every
nth household. In the case of multiple-family residences, each
living unit was considered a household. The starting point and
the selection interval were assigned by the project adminis-
trator. If a house appeared vacant, the director was instructed
to go to an adjacent house. If the house appeared to be
occupied but no one was home, the director returned at
another time. If no one was home on the return visit, the
director went to an adjacent house. At each house, an adult
(18 years or older) was asked to participate in the survey.
Those who agreed to participate were given the questionnaire
and a time was scheduled when the director could return to
collect the completed instrument. Of the contacted house-
holds, 67% completed the questionnaire. By community, the
response rate ranged from 48 to 98%. Budget and time con-
straints prevented assessing the potential nonresponse bias.
Recognizing that seasonal residents would influence the
response, particularly to the tourism questions, the pretest
data collection was conducted between May 24 and June 1,
1985.
Community participation in the CRRDP was self-deter-
mined. Eligible communities were contacted during the year
preceding their involvement in the project, and those wishing
to participate were required to provide housing and office
space for the director and a programming budget. Conse-
quently, a nonrandom subset of communities actually partic-
ipated in the project. However, the final set of communities
was geographically distributed throughout the state.
Two measures of each community’s existing level of tour-
ism were developed. First, using data provided by the Bureau
of Business Research at the University of Colorado at
Boulder, each community’s economic dependence on tour-
ism was defined on the basis of the percentage of local retail
sales derived from tourism. Second, the magnitude of each
community’s tourism industry was defined by multiplying the
percentage of retail sales derived from tourism by the com-
munity’s total retail sales (Guernsey 1986). Owing to the
relatively high correlation between the economic dependence
and magnitude measures (r .781, p < .0001), however,
=
only the economic dependence measure was used for the
analyses reported in this article. As reflected in Table 1,
community dependence on tourism ranged from 0.1to 81.9%.
Since the unit of analysis of the level of tourism measure was
the community instead of the individual residents, regression
and Pearson correlation procedures were inappropriate tests
of the relationship between community level of tourism and
resident tourism perceptions and attitudes. Consequently, the
communities were grouped into five levels to reflect increas-
ing levels of tourism development. As explained in the follow-
ing section, the analyses were then accomplished using chi
square, Spearman, and analysis of variance procedures.
RESULTS
Table 2 presents the distribution of response to the tourism
attitude and perception questions, ordered within major cate-
gories by the percentage of the respondents agreeing with
each statement. Generally, the respondents tourism attitudes
and perceptions are very positive. Over 75% of the respon-
dents disagreed with the statements that tourism increases
crime problems and reduces the quality of outdoor recreation
opportunities. Further, 86% of the respondents felt that
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDY COMMUNITIES BY ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON TOURISM
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOURISM ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS
a
SD =
strongly disagree, D =
disagree, A =
agree, and SA
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
increasing the number of tourists would help the local econ-
omy and 71% of the respondents felt their community should
try to attract more tourists. Finally, the support for special
tourism user fees and taxes, in the form of both differential
park user fees and lodging taxes, was relatively low at 33%
and 19% agreement, respectively.
As hypothesized, the perceived impacts of tourism in-
creased significantly with increasing levels of tourism devel-
opment (Table 3). Chi square measures of association and
Spearman rho correlation coefficients yielded statistics sig-
nificant at or below alpha .001for each of the five tourism
=
impact statements. Concerning the negative impacts of tour-
ism development, a relatively high percentage of the respon-
dents at the highest levels of tourism development felt that
tourism development had unfairly increased real estate costs
and increased the number of crime problems. Only a small
percentage of these people felt that tourism development had
reduced the quality of local outdoor recreation opportunities.
However, a significant majority of these same &dquo;high tourism&dquo;
respondents felt that tourism development had improved the
local quality of life and the appearance of their community.
=
strongly agree.
5
Statistically, the most significant changes in resident percep-
tions across the levels of tourism development were in the
perceived quality of life improvements and increased crime
problems.
Few significant differences in resident attitudes toward
additional tourism development were observed across the
levels of tourism development (Table 4). A significant asso-
ciation was observed between response to the statement &dquo;this
community should try to attract more tourists to this area&dquo;
and level of existing tourism. It was hypothesized that the
favorability of resident attitudes toward additional tourism
development would initially increase with increasing tourism
development, but reach a threshold point beyond which atti-
tudes would become less favorable. However, the pattern of
response showed an initial increase between the first and
second levels of tourism development, then a similarity
between the second and third levels, a significant decline at
the fourth level of development, but a corresponding increase
on the fifth level. At the second, third, and fifth levels of
economic dependence on tourism, the favorability of atti-
TABLE 3
PERCEPTIONS OF EXISTING TOURISM IMPACT BY ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY ON TOURISM
a
Sample size for that column of percentages.
b
Significant at alpha <_ .001.
C
Deviation from 100.0 due to rounding.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
6
tudes toward additional tourism development were essential-
ly the same.
As hypothesized, resident support for special tourism user
fees and taxes increased significantly with increasing levels of
tourism development ( Table 5). Both for differential park and
outdoor recreation facility user fees and for hotel lodging
taxes, the attitudes of respondents from communities with
extensive tourism industries were significantly more suppor-
tive than those of respondents from communities with limited
or no tourism.
Further analysis of the resident perceptions of tourism
impacts and their attitudes toward additional tourism devel-
opment were conducted using factor analysis. Specifically, a
principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted of the five tourism impact statements and of
the four statements reflecting resident attitudes toward addi-
tional tourism development. Given that the tourism impact
and attitude data were ordinal, a Spearman correlation matrix
was first calculated and submitted as input to the factor
analysis. For the tourism impact statements, two factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were identified. Together these consists of the statements which reflect negative impacts from
factors explained 64.2% of the variance in the impact state- tourism development (Table 6). The items loading on factor
ments. The rotated factor patterns indicate that factor one two reflect the positive impacts of tourism development.

TABLE 4
ATTITUDES TOWARD ADDITIONAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT BY ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY ON TOURISM

a
Sample size for that column of percentages.
b
Significant at alpha _< .001.
C
Significant at alpha _< .01.
d Deviation from 100.0 due to rounding.

TABLE 5
ATTITUDES CONCERNING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF SPECIAL TOURISM TAXES
BY ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY ON TOURISM

a
Sample size for that column of percentages.
b
Significant at alpha <_ .001.
°
Deviation from 100.0 due to rounding.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
7
 TABLE 6 As output to the two factor analyses, standardized factor
ROTATED FACTOR PATTERN FOR PERCEPTION scores were created for each respondent. For the purpose of
TO TOURISM IMPACT STATEMENTS
examining differences in these factor scores by the level of
tourism measure, ANOVA tests were conducted with Duncan
multiple-range post hoc tests of main effects. Significant dif-
ferences in both the resident perceptions of tourism impact
and their attitudes toward additional tourism development
were found by level of tourism (Table 8). As hypothesized,
the perception of tourism impacts, both positive and negative,
increased significantly with increasing levels of tourism devel-
opment. Also as hypothesized, resident support for additional
tourism development initially increased with increasing
levels of tourism, but achieved a threshold point beyond
which it became less favorable. This threshold appears to
occur when about 30% of local retail sales are derived from
tourism.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this research was to examine differences in
rural resident perceptions of tourism impacts, attitudes toward
additional tourism development, and attitudes concerning the
appropriateness of special tourism user fees and taxes com-
Variance explained by factor analysis =
64.2%.
paring residents of communities grouped on the basis of eco-
nomic dependency on tourism. The data used for this analysis
The results of the factor analysis of resident attitudes were collected during May 1985 in 28 Colorado communities
toward additional tourism development are presented in as part of the CRRDP. Two important limitations should be
Table 7. Only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 recognized. First, the variation in the response to the tourism
was found. On the basis of the factor loading scores, the higher questions was limited. Even though a four-point response
the individual’s score on that factor, the more favorable his or format was used, the actual response was generally limited to
her attitude was toward additional tourism development. The the &dquo;agree&dquo; and &dquo;disagree&dquo; categories. Further research is
factor analysis explained 51.6% of the variance in the four needed to develop better measures (i.e., measures with greater
attitude statements. variance) of the tourism perception and attitude items.
Second, the communities examined in this research rep-
TABLE 7 resent a nonrandom set of rural Colorado communities,
ROTATED FACTOR PATTERN FOR RESIDENT including only communities sufficiently concerned about
ATTITUDES TOWARD ADDITIONAL local recreation opportunities to participate in the CRRDP.
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
Although the study communities were geographically dis-
tributed throughout Colorado, there is no evidence to support
the assumption that they are representative of all rural
Colorado communities. Further research examining a ran-
dom set of communities is needed.
The theoretical contribution of this research was in the
opportunity to examine resident tourism perceptions and
attitudes across communities with varying levels of tourism
development. Although carrying capacity is the predominant
theoretical perspective of tourism planning and development,
very little is known of the changes that occur in resident
tourism perceptions and attitudes with increasing tourism
development. For this research, three hypotheses of the rela-
Variance explained by factor analysis =
51.6%. tionship between increasing tourism development and resi-

TABLE 8
MEAN FACTOR SCORES BY ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY ON TOURISM

a
Significant at alpha <.0001.
b Duncan multiple range test results. Columns with different letters are statistically different at alpha =
.05.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
8
dent tourism perceptions and attitudes were tested. First, it
was hypothesized that the perception of tourism impacts
would increase with increasing levels of tourism develop-
ment. For both the positive and negative impacts of tourism
development, this hypothesis was supported. Statistically,
the most significant changes in resident tourism impact per-
ceptions across the levels of tourism development were im-
provements in local quality of life and increasing crime
problems. Only a small percentage of the respondents felt that
tourism development had reduced the quality of local outdoor
recreation opportunities. Residents apparently do perceive
significant changes in their community as a result of tourism
development.
Second, it was hypothesized that the favorability of resi-
dent attitudes toward additional tourism development would
initially increase with increasing tourism development, but at
some point would achieve a threshold level of development
beyond which attitudes would become less favorable. The
analyses of the individual attitude statements only partially
supported this hypothesis. The pattern of response on the item
&dquo;this community should try to attract more tourists to this
area&dquo; initially increased with increasing tourism develop-
ment and then declined, but actually increased between the
fourth and fifth levels of development. Using factor analysis,
an overall attitude score was developed. The results of an
ANOVA analysis of this factor score by level of tourism were
as hypothesized. The threshold of development beyond
which resident attitudes toward additional development
became less favorable was when approximately 30% of local
retail sales were derived from tourism. This result indicates
that a &dquo;social carrying capacity&dquo; may exist beyond which
rural community residents do not support additional tourism
development.
Third, it was hypothesized that resident attitudes concern-
ing the appropriateness of special tourism user fees and taxes
would become more favorable with increasing levels of tour-
ism development. The study results supported this hypothesis
both for differential park and recreation facility user fees and
for lodging taxes. Exchange theory has been used widely to
explain resident attitudes toward tourism development, and
residents of communities with substantial tourism industries
may perceive that applying differential user fees and lodging
taxes will benefit them personally by reducing their cost of
using local parks and outdoor recreation areas and their local
property and sales tax, respectively. Importantly, these re-
sults may also indicate less willingness by residents of &dquo;high
tourism&dquo; communities to support additional tourism develop-
ment through general revenue tax funds.
The applied implications of this research depend on the
perspective of the research consumer. From the perspective
of the community planner/manager, an important goal is
optimizing not only the economic benefits of tourism devel-
opment but also the social and environmental benefits. This
research indicates that resident perceptions of both the posi-
tive and negative impacts of tourism development increase
with increasing level of development. However, resident sup-
port for additional tourism development appears to decline
after tourism-related sales surpass 30% of total retail sales.
From the perspective of the private tourism developer, the
results indicate that community residents are sensitive not
only to the economic contributions of tourism, but also to the
social and environmental impacts. Consequently, mitigation
of the potential negative social and environmental impacts of
tourism development is an important responsibility of the
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 17, 2014
developer, as is enhancing and communicating the positive
social and environmental impacts of tourism.
REFERENCES
Belisle, F. J. and D. R Hoy (1980), "The Perceived Impact of Tourism by
Residents: A Case Study in Santa Marta, Colombia," Annals of Tour-
ism Research, 12, 83-101.
Brougham, J. E. and R W. Butler (1981), "A Segmentation Analysis of
Resident Attitudes to the Social Annals
Impact of Tourism," of Tourism
Research, 13, 569-90.
Bryant, E. G. and T. L. Napier(1981), "The Application of Social Exchange
Theory to the Study of Satisfaction with Outdoor Recreation Facilities,"
in Outdoor Recreation Planning, Perspectives, and Research, T. L.
Napier, ed., pp. 83-98, Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Co.
Cooke, K. (1982), "Guidelines for Socially Appropriate Tourism Develop-
ment in British Columbia," Journal of Travel Research, 21, 22-28.
Getz, D. (1977), "The Impact of Tourism on Host Populations: A Research
Approach," in Tourism: A Tool for Regional Development, B. S.
Duffield, ed., pp. 9.1-9.13, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
&mdash;(1983), "Capacity to Absorb Tourism: Concepts and Implications for
Strategic Planning," Annals of Tourism Research, 10, 239-63.
&mdash;(1986), "Models in Tourism Planning: Towards Integration of Theory
and Practice," Tourism Management, 7, 21-32.
Guernsey, C. (1986), Colorado City Retail Sales by Standard Industrial
Classification, Calendar Year 1985, Boulder, CO: Bureau of Business
Research, University of Colorado.
Haywood, K. M. (1988), "Responsible and Responsive Tourism Planning in
the Community," Tourism Management, 9, 105-18.
Jafari, J. (1981), "Limit to Tourism Development: An AIEST Conference
Report," Journal of Travel Research, 19, 25-26.
Liu, J. D., P. J. Sheldon, and T. Var (1987), "Resident Perception of the
Environmental Impacts of Tourism," Annals of Tourism Research,
14, 17-37.
Liu, J. C. and T. Var(1986), "Resident Attitudes Toward Tourism Impacts m
Hawaii," Annals of Tourism Research, 13, 193-214.
Loukissas, P. J. (1983), "Public Participation in Community Tourism Plan-
ning: A Gaming Simulation Approach," Journal of Travel Research,
12, 18-23.
Marsh, N. R and B. D. Henshall (1987), "Planning Better Tourism: The
Strategic Importance of Tourist-Resident Expectations and Interac-
tions," Tourism Recreation Research, 12, 47-54.
Milman, A. and A. Pizam (1988), "Social Impacts of Tourism on Central
Florida," Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 191-204.
Murphy, P. E. (1981), "Community Attitudes to Tourism: A Comparative
Analysis," International Journal of Tourism Management, 3, 189-95.
&mdash;(1983), "Perceptions and Attitudes of Decision Making Groups in Tour-
ism Centers," Journal of Travel Research, 21, 8-12.
&mdash;(1985), Tourism: A Community Approach, New York: Methuen.
O’Reilly, A. M. (1986), "Tourism Carrying Capacity," Tourism Manage-
ment, 7, 254-58.
Pearce, D. G. (1981), Tourist Development, New York: Longman Group.
Perdue, R R, P. T. Long, and L. Allen (1987), "Rural Resident Tourism
Perceptions and Attitudes," Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 420-29.
Pizam, A. (1978), "Tourism’s Impacts: The Social Costs to the Destination
Community as Perceived by its Residents," Journal of Travel Research,
16,8-12.
Pizam, A. and A. Milman (1986), "The Social Impacts of Tourism," Tour-
ism Recreation Research, 11, 29-32.
Rosenow, J. and G. Pulsipher(1979), Tourism: The Good, The Bad, and The
Ugly, Lincoln, NE: Century Three Press.
Rothman, R A. (1978), "Residents and Transients: Community Reaction to
Seasonal Visitors," Journal of Travel Research, 16, 8-13.
Sheldon, P. J. and T. Var (1984), "Resident Attitudes to Tourism in North
Wales," Tourism Management, 5, 40-47.
Somersan, A. (1988), "Revitalizing Rural America: Issues and Challenges,"
in Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies - 1987,
pp. 29-33, Oak Brook, IL: Farm Foundation.
Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R C. Lucas, M. E. Petersen, and S. S. Frissell
(1985), The Limits of Acceptable Change(LAC) Systemfor Wilderness
Planning, General Technical Report INT-176, Ogden, UT: USDA
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Thomason, P. S., J. L. Crompton, and B. D. Kamp (1979), "A Study of the
Attitudes of Impacted Groups within a Host Community Toward Pro-
longed Stay Tourist Visitors," Journal of Travel Research, 17, 2-6.
Watkins, D. A. and T. G. Allen (1988), "Rural Revitalization: Role and
Policies for Entrepreneurship," in
Increasing Understanding of Public
Problems and Policies - 1987, pp. 52-67, Oak Brook, IL. Farm
Foundation.
9